Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jul 2020 02:50

Love these twitter experts so authoritative!

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 17 Jul 2020 02:59

LakshmanPST wrote:
sankum wrote:Tejas 16 mk1 IOC+ 16 mk1 FOC + 18 mk1 FOC trainers+ 83 mk1a = 133 nos will form 7 operational squadrons. @19 fighter/ sq. All 83 mk1a should be single seater.
2023-24 to 2026-27 mk1a over 4 years @ 20/year.
I think 83 Mk1A is actually 73 Mk1A + 10 FOC Trainers...
In the original 40 Mk1 orders, there are originally 4 IOC and 4 FOC Trainers and all of them will now be FOC... So, 8 FOC Trainers here...

What we have is 16 IOC + 16 FOC + 73 Mk1A + 18 FOC Trainers...
That will be 6 squadrons (16 Single seaters + 3 Trainers per squadron) with 9 extra single seaters...

This is accurate except for the last part which is not clear to me 100%.

Possible Sq structure

- 16 IOC + 4 FOC Trainers
- 16 FOC + 4 FOC trainers
- (16 Mk1A + 2 FOC trainers) = 18 (sanctioned strength) + 2 spare MK1A + 1 Spare FOC trainers = total 21
- (16 Mk1A + 2 FOC trainers) = 18 + 2 spare MK1A + 1 Spare FOC trainers = total 21
- (16 Mk1A + 2 FOC trainers) = 18 + 3 spare MK1A = total 21
- (16 Mk1A + 2 FOC trainers) = 18 + 2 spare MK1A = total 20

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 17 Jul 2020 03:07

Rakesh wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Follow up tweet to the tweet above....

https://twitter.com/MI6GB/status/128381 ... 91969?s=20 --->
Some dude in the twitter thread (link below) is stating the above configuration does not account for fuel.

Gurus, please confirm.

https://twitter.com/DFI_Sancho/status/1 ... 67170?s=20

That guy is a rabid LCA hater. You cant make him see reason in this matter. Best be ignored.

We just have one image with no context. What if it was for a strike mission which doesn't need extra fuel..? Or it was just a dummy config for testing of avionics purpose..? There could be 100 explanations. I wouldn't trouble my mind over comment by someone who all but just wants to diss Tejas by finding some trivial hole where not enough info exists.

BTW, would a weapons loadout information display show external tanks if any..??

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 17 Jul 2020 03:13

ramana wrote:
nam wrote:Frankly I don't understand why HAL needs to wait for MoD to sign the order and delay the delivery.

They could easily get a loan from a PSU, under written by MoD, pay off suppliers to start making the LRU. When the MoD order comes, pay back the money to the bank.
They need direction from the MoDP. Hope this happens as part of Atmanirbhar Bharat.
The suppliers can get a head start before the MoD contract is signed.

Exactly.

What if HAL had taken loan in 2016..? They would be paying interests indefinitely. We still dont know when will actual payment start. They have burnt their fingers by starting LCH production ahead of orders. They had to stop it midway and the order is not coming and there is limit to how much capital they can engage in invetory waiting for orders and how much cash they can burn in the interest payments. IAF/IA will not consider this cost in the final per unit cost. They will simply say, you took a risk and it didn't pay off. Delays are not our responsibility, its MoD babudom. And of course babudom will never accept their own mistake. That can never ever happen in India. OTOH, HAL have quite a few program which need money. Arguably putting money on HTT or IJT of HTFE or LUH etc is also important. So they will prioritize ize their limited resources.

BTW, HAL has not waited for order for the development of MK1A. Its continuing with HAL's own funds.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 17 Jul 2020 06:46

Rakesh wrote:
V_Raman wrote:But where is Mk1A? No working aircraft yet? What is rationale for any contract if there is no flying aircraft?
First flight of Mk1A is due by next year or the latest by 2022.

First deliveries of Mk1A will happen only in 2023, assuming a contract is signed in Dec 2020. It takes three years for delivery and that is the industry standard.

I don’t understand - how can there be a contract without a flying aircraft? IAF has Agreed to buy if there is mk1A - why lock up funds before it has not flown even once? I guess there can be development funds - but is it normal practice to lock up an order for 83 aircrafts in such scenarios? How did mig 29 upg contract work? They started the work after confirmed contract from India?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Jul 2020 07:37

How did India buy 36 Rafales with ISE in Sept 2016, when not a single one of that variant existed back then? And today, there is only one Rafale (RB008) flying in France with the ISE and that one is due to arrive in India only by April 2022. How was a contract signed for the India-specific Rafale, when not a single one was flying? The first batch of Rafales arriving by the end of this month will not even have the ISE upgrades on them.

How was a contract signed for the Su-30MKI in 1996, when not a single MKI existed in 1996? The first batch of Su-30s was the K variant and the first MKI formally entered service only on 27 Sept 2002 - a full six years later.

The Tejas Mk1A is an upgraded Mk1, but the basic airframe has not changed. One of the LSPs is being converted into a Mk1A and is supposed to have her first flight next year. That will not stop the IAF from signing a contract for them. It is very much a normal practise to order aircraft in this manner.

The Jaguar, the Mirage 2000 and the MiG-21 also had similar stories.

kvraghav · Post by **kvraghav** » 17 Jul 2020 07:39

What if IAF does not buy it after it is flying? What will HAL say to its stock holders? All upg contracts are post evaluation. In rafeal case too, the bird we got is different than the bird that was flying but a contract was signed. Payment is done based on deliveries I think with some paid as advance. Even here, HAL never got the advance but private for do. HAL had complained on that aspect too.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Jul 2020 07:45

Contracts do not work that way Saar. When you sign a contract, you make payments on a pre-arranged schedule. Please refer to news reports on the Rafale deal.

When the IAF makes payments for the 83 Mk1As, it is in the IAF’s interest to get the product. The meagre CAPEX invested will be wasted otherwise. There is no question of the IAF not flying the bird unless it is fundamentally unsafe.

And that will be a manufacturing QC issue and nothing to do with the aircraft. The IAF has nearly two decades of flying the bird. The question that the aircraft is NOT sound does not even arise.

And it is in HAL’s interest to iron out the QC issues before delivery. Everything is riding on the Mk1 and Mk1A —> Mk2, TEDBF, ORCA, SPORT, AMCA, etc.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Jul 2020 07:47

JayS wrote:That guy is a rabid LCA hater. You cant make him see reason in this matter. Best be ignored.

We just have one image with no context. What if it was for a strike mission which doesn't need extra fuel..? Or it was just a dummy config for testing of avionics purpose..? There could be 100 explanations. I wouldn't trouble my mind over comment by someone who all but just wants to diss Tejas by finding some trivial hole where not enough info exists.
BTW, would a weapons loadout information display show external tanks if any..??

Well said Saar. Thank you.

He is pushing for Gripen E.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jul 2020 08:17

Rakesh Its funding.
And JayS HAL is also GOI owned.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 17 Jul 2020 09:08

Thanks for the explanation Rakeshji.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 17 Jul 2020 10:00

HVT said on twitter recently that HAL has been trying out Mk1A related testing on LSPs. So even though there isnt a full fledged prototype, they are testing out internals.

kvraghav · Post by **kvraghav** » 17 Jul 2020 11:37

ramana wrote:Rakesh Its funding.
And JayS HAL is also GOI owned.

HAL is also a publicly traded company now but primary share holders is the govt.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 17 Jul 2020 12:05

Prasad wrote:HVT said on twitter recently that HAL has been trying out Mk1A related testing on LSPs. So even though there isnt a full fledged prototype, they are testing out internals.

Two LSPs are already testing Mk1A related subsystems, I think IR mentioned it on Twitter somewhere. Not sure if it includes the one with Utram (lsp2?) Or these are two separate ones.

Test rig for full avionics suite was to be built, there was a tender for it. Another tender I had seen for the SMFDs some time back. Dileep saar would know all these details. I also had posted in this thread in the past. We know that upgraded avionics modules with tech infusion from MK2 ( was it the FCS computer or MC, can't rem now exactly) is already. So a lot of work has been done and is ongoing at HAL despite the delays in MK1A orders.

As such there will not be a separate Mk1A prototype as the changes are not such that it need separate PTs. First Mk1A will directly be the SP41 (or SP 33?). The first 1-2 of jets will definitely be used for some flight testing and type certification before handing over to the IAF, but the testing will be minimal.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 17 Jul 2020 12:53

FCC yes.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 17 Jul 2020 12:57

Full Contract for development & "production" of Barak-8 for Rs. 20,000 crores (USD 365 Million + USD 2200 Million) was given 5-10 years before the first test fire of the missile.

basant · Post by **basant** » 17 Jul 2020 13:19

^^^
I think that is generally true for upgradation of current fighters in general. Except that this is modification of a to be built upgraded version of a current proven system. Like Su-30MKI!

nam · Post by **nam** » 17 Jul 2020 14:00

JayS wrote:
What if HAL had taken loan in 2016..? They would be paying interests indefinitely. We still dont know when will actual payment start. They have burnt their fingers by starting LCH production ahead of orders. They had to stop it midway and the order is not coming and there is limit to how much capital they can engage in invetory waiting for orders and how much cash they can burn in the interest payments. IAF/IA will not consider this cost in the final per unit cost. They will simply say, you took a risk and it didn't pay off. Delays are not our responsibility, its MoD babudom. And of course babudom will never accept their own mistake. That can never ever happen in India. OTOH, HAL have quite a few program which need money. Arguably putting money on HTT or IJT of HTFE or LUH etc is also important. So they will prioritize ize their limited resources.

BTW, HAL has not waited for order for the development of MK1A. Its continuing with HAL's own funds.

I would understand this for a regular private company. But MoD, HAL, PSU bank, IAF are all GoI entities. It is all left pocket, right pocket. GoI could subsidize the interest payment, if it really wanted the jets on time. There are lot of ways.

I remember HAL once showed interest earned on early order payment by MoD as profits

. Luckily we had the good MP, who clamped down on this practice!

Sadly, how much ever we aspire LCA to be inducted in numbers, the reality is IAF doesn't consider LCA as a priority. We blame MoD & Babus for the whole mess, but they are shielding IAF's obsession with imports. MoD cannot much, if LCA comes at number 5 or 10 in IAF's priority.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 17 Jul 2020 15:56

sankum wrote:
LakshmanPST wrote:
I think 83 Mk1A is actually 73 Mk1A + 10 FOC Trainers...
In the original 40 Mk1 orders, there are originally 4 IOC and 4 FOC Trainers and all of them will now be FOC... So, 8 FOC Trainers here...

What we have is 16 IOC + 16 FOC + 73 Mk1A + 18 FOC Trainers...
That will be 6 squadrons (16 Single seaters + 3 Trainers per squadron) with 9 extra single seaters...
Let clarity emerge.

Livefist article states that 8 Trainer FOC order is expanded to 18 so that manufacturing line is not idle + 83 mk1a.

Shiv Aroor unnecessarily confused people. There are NO NEW trainer orders.

As Lakshman mentioned, 4 trainers from IOC contract + 4 trainers from FOC contract + 10 trainers from Mk1A contract = 18 trainers. NONE have been built so far, as they are all supposed to be built to the FOC standard with air to air refueling probe. They will begin to be assembled after the last FOC single seater is on the assembly line.

if HAL manages to stick to it's own internal timeline for the Mk1A (and not what will be in the contract thanks to the MoD and MoF's delays) then the first Mk1A should be on the assembly line while the trainers are being built. That would ensure no gap in delivery and no idle assembly line.

Avtar Singh · Post by **Avtar Singh** » 17 Jul 2020 19:51

These Indian arguments about cost and contracts between government entities are
really funny.

The other day I noticed my right hand was arguing with my left over how
much money each hand was holding, which hand should have the most money?
Then the argument moved onto whether the money should end up in my left trouser pocket
or my right trouser pocket. Which trouser pocket should hold the most money?

Just imagine if there was war on!

MeshaVishwas · Post by **MeshaVishwas** » 17 Jul 2020 22:23

This is not a cricket match where you send your B-Team to play against their B-Team...we need to win against whatever they throw at us!
Please remember, the IAF had ordered 20 LCA Mk 1 in 2006 and 20 more in 2010. The last of these will be delivered by 2022 or so!

https://twitter.com/Nambitiger1/status/ ... 28130?s=20
(Air Marshal Raghunath Nambiar, former Tejas TP)
A lot of institutional inertia against (and for) Tejas. Will definitely change favourably with more entering service IMO.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 17 Jul 2020 23:33

What got lost in the exchange was this - TSP is getting tons of JF-17 which is their middle tier fighter (Mirage 3/5 and F-7 lower tier, JF-17 middle and F-16 highest tier). LCA in our case is the lower tier fighter in IAF (middle - Mig 29,m2k, Higher - su30mki/Rafale), but it is better than JF-17. There is no reason for its delay. We should be buying it left and right.

It can definitely best and can easily defeat mirage 3/5 and F-7 of PAF (320 in number of 500 PAF planes, from wiki). I.e. LCA can down 65% of current PAF inventory in a turkey shoot (so can our Bisons).

It can perhaps 90% of the time can best 107 jF-17 - 20%. So it has advantage over 85% of PAF inventory.

It will not be a slouch against 76 F-16 (15%) of it's force. Perhaps be at 50/50. Even if it is not, the fact that it can best 85% of PAF current firghters should be good enough reason to add it in large numbers.

nam · Post by **nam** » 17 Jul 2020 23:39

IAF will not push for LCA to add numbers, GoI will not let IAF import their dream, Rafale in hundreds.

So people who are suppose to worry about national security are not worried, why should we break our heads.

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 17 Jul 2020 23:57

Anujan wrote:A pooch out of genuine curiosity. Let us assume HAL overcharges IAF. Where exactly does the "extra" money go? Dividend back to the government? Then why this chai-biskoot on whether HAL profit margin should be 5% or 10%?

This is not the right conclusion at all. Internal negotiations happen in companies, even in families

. One party is telling the other to stretch out the rupee and do more with less. The other party will look for opportunities to save, squeeze their suppliers, use cheaper inputs, forego the new officers club, reduce travel budget, use vendors instead of hiring full time employees, or come back with suggestions how they can work together to get savings, for instance with a larger order, or a different schedule, or help with capex/land/experts etc etc. This is super complicated even when the two parties are both government entities.

Rs_singh · Post by **Rs_singh** » 18 Jul 2020 00:05

Yensoy,

Disagree entirely. This isn’t a case of being double blind. The MoD which runs both IAF AND HAL knows exactly how much it costs to make the plane down to the cent. MoF which cuts the check has access to the same exact data. There are no blinds in this game. None. It’s all hogwash.
Now if say, you were to make a point, saying something like the management at HAL needs to deliver a certain target for revenue that the PC set for them (now niti or whatever) and the babu at the top wants his promotion and all the perks that go with it, you would want to exceed that target at the expense of delaying. Remember RM is the boss of both mod and modp. The buck stops with him. It’s a bit like US banks hedging bets against defaulters by insuring themselves against default but giving them loans anyway in 08.

basant · Post by **basant** » 18 Jul 2020 00:13

MeshaVishwas wrote:
This is not a cricket match where you send your B-Team to play against their B-Team...we need to win against whatever they throw at us!
Please remember, the IAF had ordered 20 LCA Mk 1 in 2006 and 20 more in 2010. The last of these will be delivered by 2022 or so!
https://twitter.com/Nambitiger1/status/ ... 28130?s=20
(Air Marshal Raghunath Nambiar, former Tejas TP)
A lot of institutional inertia against (and for) Tejas. Will definitely change favourably with more entering service IMO.

After 3-legged cheeta, we now have B-team comment from TP of LCA. Despite LCA having best scores and punching above its weight. Some things don't change, it seems.

Rs_singh · Post by **Rs_singh** » 18 Jul 2020 00:21

Basant,

I think you’re misinterpreting the comment. You have many assets in a fleet, all serve their purpose. It was said on Twitter without a second thought.

basant · Post by **basant** » 18 Jul 2020 00:26

Rs_singh wrote:Basant,

I think you’re misinterpreting the comment. You have many assets in a fleet, all serve their purpose. It was said on Twitter without a second thought.

Hope so. Never heard such an expression even for Bisons though.

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 18 Jul 2020 00:46

Rs_singh wrote:Yensoy,

Disagree entirely. This isn’t a case of being double blind. The MoD which runs both IAF AND HAL knows exactly how much it costs to make the plane down to the cent.

That's the problem. Nobody, not even HAL, knows how much it will eventually cost to make the plane. They have an estimate. Then they will pad the estimate because after all it's an estimate and various input costs can go up. A lot of inputs are imported and subject to currency risks. Rupee depreciation has to be planned for; contingencies, repairs, labour wages/actions, etc etc. Then they will pad it again just to be safe, and then they will add their small profit. We do it all the time even within a company - a different division says "build X for me" and I say "it will take YYY", then we haggle back and forth. Even to my immediate boss I will pad it a little because hey if it takes me longer to build it, I get dinged - either my engineering abilities get dinged, or my estimation skills. If I deliver quicker or cheaper, then I'm the hero. Same with my boss, etc.

MoD can play referee and ask the two sides to work out something.

Sorry, but this is nothing like making pakodas for tomorrow where we know exactly what it will cost to make a kg. Do you know the price of titanium in 2025?

Rs_singh · Post by **Rs_singh** » 18 Jul 2020 00:49

No, I don’t know the price of titanium in 2025 but the contractor with whom I have a contract for X years is based on a fixed cost. That being said, if HAL has but an estimate for whatever reason, incompetence or not, that is a very serious problem.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 18 Jul 2020 02:04

Anujan wrote:
A pooch out of genuine curiosity. Let us assume HAL overcharges IAF. Where exactly does the "extra" money go? Dividend back to the government? Then why this chai-biskoot on whether HAL profit margin should be 5% or 10%?

Why not have a cursory look at HAL's balance sheet which is available publically..?? Its not all that hard to read thru it.

basant · Post by **basant** » 18 Jul 2020 09:39

Rs_singh wrote:Basant,

I think you’re misinterpreting the comment. You have many assets in a fleet, all serve their purpose. It was said on Twitter without a second thought.

HVT's comment

Harsh Vardhan Thakur
@hvtiaf
Replying to
@Firezstarter1
B-Team? Its the only Indian team. Yes we've to raise our standards. Takes decades of effort

Or we could continue to buy out better players. Some West Asian countries buy athletes to get among medals. Medieval mindset.

Can't use enemy-at-the-gates threat forever. Cannot endorse.
4:13 AM · Jul 18, 2020

Rs_singh · Post by **Rs_singh** » 18 Jul 2020 12:25

Basant,

I say again, perhaps I’m naive, but things said in the moment can’t be thought of as a state of mind. I could be 100% wrong, but I hope I’m not.

Roop · Post by **Roop** » 18 Jul 2020 12:58

Rs_singh wrote:Basant,

I think you’re misinterpreting the comment. You have many assets in a fleet, all serve their purpose. It was said on Twitter without a second thought.

Further to the above, I don't see the "B Team" comment as an insult in this context. In an air force whose "A Team" consists of Su30-MKI, Rafale, Mirage 2000-9 and Mig-29-UPG, being the B Team is okay, especially as we are discussing the plain-vanilla Mk 1 Tejas (not Mk 2 or even Mk 1A).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Jul 2020 18:22

I think you are misunderstanding what Yensoy wrote. What he said is exactly how it happens during the D&D phase. What was the need for the jab around Word or PPT or IT/SW world etc.

Estimates are given during the development phase. That's what he is referring to. What you are talking of is during a mature production phase when estimates are more granular with costing locked down with multiple suppliers and most if not all uncertainty is pushed out of the contracting unless some natural disaster occurs or a supplier decides they can't manage. Even so he has a point, for something like the Tejas Mk1A where its likely that many of the subsystems are entirely different from the Tejas Mk1, and are purpose ordered for the aircraft from suppliers who are delivering low production runs (custom LCA specific, low run rate builds), costing is not an easy task especially as geo-strat issues/price-gouging can always hike certain costs of key subsystems. That is always a risk.

HAL has agreed to take a profit margin hit as it is, on the program, but most pvt vendors would steer far away from such a program wherein they have to undertake a huge set of risks but manage with few if any margins. Luckily HAL is under GOI control, so this is allowed. But if this continues, other stakeholders (HAL being a publicly listed firm) will definitely take umbrage and create a fuss. There is fundamentally a conflict of interest here in running a corporate organization (maximize profits), as versus national aims (minimize costing) which to a degree MOD tends to get around by playing the dividend game (which would be ok for the services if it goes back to the service, but it does not, it goes to the MOF/non GOI shareholders), and is not optimal from the POV of HAL itself (is it really better to pay off MOF as versus reinvesting the funds in core R&D).

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 18 Jul 2020 22:11

Come on guys!! We are talking about Raghunath Nambiar here!! One of the staunchest supporter of Tejas. Even the simple notion that he considers Tejas an inferior platform is 'guruthvakkedu' (disrespecting a respectable person. one of the worse sins in our culture)

Let me take the liberty to rephrase him.

This is not a kalari payattu match where you deploy the 'churika' against 'churika' and 'urumi' against 'urumi'...we need to win against whatever they throw at us!

See? That is what he meant!!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 19 Jul 2020 01:19

Well said Dileep. Not sure if everyone will get the references.

pandyan · Post by **pandyan** » 19 Jul 2020 07:13

Nambi sir could have clarified in social media on what he meant. so far, he hasn't and people including hvt sir are not happy.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2020 07:50

I think he maent what Dileep wrote.
Lets rest it at that.\
Also he attended BRF meet in B'Lore with shiv.
Our own.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 19 Jul 2020 17:19

I don't get the references but I do get the B Team.
What saddens me is not that Nambi said it cause I know everyone has a B Team. China does, Pak does... everyone does.

What is sad is the previous B team is almost retired and buried and we don't see the orders.
I cannot understand why the cash or intent is being held back

I know I have limp my broken enthusiasm till December after which i am sure I will be told drag my carcass to 31st of March 2021 and Rakesh remembers we did that this year too.

nvm... we go on.